dimension was violated because the facts represent a clear threat to other communicators and to society as a whole in terms of the consequences that publishing on certain topics can have. Effectively, the petitioner argued that those responsible for the facts alleged sought to send a message to journalists to censor them and prevent them from covering news related to the armed conflict. The petitioner highlighted that the case in question is a reflection of the fact that the professional activities of communicators in Colombia are not protected by effective judicial guarantees. 22. Regarding the alleged violation of articles 17 and 22 of the Convention, the petitioner indicated that the journalist had to leave the country on one occasion during two weeks and later on for for a month, in order to protect her integrity in light of the numerous threats from unknown individuals and the FARC, respectively. The petitioner also stated that the alleged kidnapping, torture, and sexual assault have had a prolonged effect on the stability of the victim’s family, and the absence of a serious, diligent, exhaustive, and effective investigation has prevented her from beginning to repair this damage to her family life. 23. With regard to the alleged violation of articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, the petitioner stated that although at the time of the facts, the State of Colombia had mechanisms for guaranteeing, preventing, investigating, and punishing regarding what happened to the journalist, they have proved to be ineffective. 24. With regard to the alleged violation of articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, the petitioner indicated that on May 25, 2000, the alleged victim was gagged, her hands and feet were tied, and she was subjected to "torturous body positions" over an extended period of time, representing physical torture. At the same time, the journalist’s captors subjected her to psychological torture. According to the petitioner, the purpose of these violations was to intimidate and punish the alleged victim for her journalism activity. The petitioner also added that the investigation launched by government authorities had not been looking into this angle. B. Position of the State 25. In communication dated March 12, 2012, and October 29, 2013, the State asked the Commission to find the petition inadmissible based on Articles 47(a) and (b) of the Convention, as the facts presented do not represent a violation of the ACHR and domestic remedies have still not been exhausted due to the complexity of the case. In this regard, it stated that the proceeding is in the preliminary investigation stage and three people have been linked to the facts alleged. It argued that there has not been an unjustified delay, and consequently, the exception found in Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention does not apply, as the investigating authorities have taken a number of steps to determine responsibility for the facts, and the delays resulting from the process are due to the case’s complexity rather than the inaction of investigating or judicial authorities. It also argued that this petition does not submit facts for which the Colombian State could be held responsible due to direct or indirect action or omission. The facts in the petition are clearly presented as the exclusive responsibility of third parties. 26. In regard to the facts leading to the petition, the State said that as a result of the criminal complaints that were filed, it has performed a serious investigation into both the facts alleged to have taken place on May 25, 2000, and the facts alleged to have taken place prior to and after that date. In this regard, the State indicated that on May 26, 2000, a preliminary investigation was opened, and on June 7, 2000, once the inquiry was assigned, the public prosecutor ttok over the case and ordered a number of measures to identify those responsible for the facts. The State said that statements were collected and inspections were made of the Model Prison of Bogota and its visitor sign-in book. The place where the facts took place was also inspected and forensic medicine test results were requested. The State indicated that in 2001, a photo lineup was done and copies were collected of the statements of certain individuals. The State highlighted that in 2003, the Forensic Investigation Team of the Office of the Public Prosecutor (Cuerpo Técnico de Investigación de la Fiscalía, CTI) issued a report, and the alleged victim and others provided statements. It also reported that in 2004, the CTI and the Security Administration Department (Departamento de Administración de Seguridad, DAS) issued reports, and a statement was ordered to be collected from one individual. According to the State, in 2006, a person was called to give a statement, and in 2007, Jineth Bedoya and other individuals gave statements, an inspection of documents was performed at a bank, and the CTI issued a new report.